JUDGMENT The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 33/2002, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision, which was filed against the order of issue process made in R.C.C. No. 69/2001, which was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon. Both the sides are heard. 2. The private complaint bearing R.C.C. NO. 69/2001 is filed by respondent No. 1 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 471, 468 and 34 etc. of I.P.C. The order of issue process is made for offences punishable under section 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C.. It is the case of the complainant that there is a dispute between the complainant and respondent in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 476 (Gat No. 1408) situated at Pahur, Tahsil Jamner, District Jalgaon. It is the case of the complainant that the land is in possession of his family since 1972. It is contended that on 16.10.1989 accused Nos. 1 to 3 created false sale deed and caused wrongful loss to the family of complainant in respect of the aforesaid land. It is contended that accused created false power of attorney document in favour of Ram chandra Badrinarayan Marwadi. It is contended that such person was not in existence, but the power of attorney was created and by using the power of attorney document, sale deed was executed in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 3. 3. It is the case of the complainant that this power of attorney document was used in civil suits filed by the complainant in respect of the same property. It is contended that when the complainant made inquiry and witness summons was issued against Ramchandra Badrinarayan Marwadi and also Kisanlal Hiralala, it transpired that such persons were not in existence. 4. Copies of some plaints and evidence given on affidavit are produced. They include copy of affidavit filed by one of the accused. It shows that they believed that said Ramchandra Marwadi was holding document of power of attorney issued by Kisanlal Hiralal and so they purchased the property on the basis of the document of power of attorney. It shows that no confirmation was done about the firm which was allegedly the owner of the property in the past. It shows that they believed that said Ramchandra Marwadi was holding document of power of attorney issued by Kisanlal Hiralal and so they purchased the property on the basis of the document of power of attorney. It shows that no confirmation was done about the firm which was allegedly the owner of the property in the past. The affidavit shows that the accused had not seen Ramchandra Marwadi in the past and the persons from Jamner had refused to identify and prepare any document for this person. 5. The order of issue process came to be made after recording verification of the complainant. In the verification, there are aforesaid contentions in respect of the sale deed and forged document of power of attorney. At the time of issuing of the process, only prima facie case is required to be made out and the defence of the accused need not be considered. Admittedly, there is civil dispute between the parties and the land was in possession of the complainant's family at the relevant time and for many years the Government had given permission to the family of complainant to cultivate the land. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there was sufficient material for issuing process against the accused. 6. Advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on following three reported cases. (i) 1971 AIR (SC) 1935 [Patel Laljibhai Somabhai Vs. State of Gujarat], (ii) 2003 AIR (SC) 541 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 376 (S.C.)] [N Natarajan Vs. B.K. Subba Rao], and (iii) 2001 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 223 : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1634] [Dilipkumar J. Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.]. In the cases cited supra, the Apex Court and this Court has considered the provisions of sections 195 and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Patel Laljibhai Simabhai cited supra show that unless and until the offence is committed by a party to the proceeding in that Court and the commission of offence has close nexus with the proceeding in that Court, the bar of section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be applied. The facts of the present case show that there is allegation that two documents were forged viz. document of power of attorney and sale deed. It cannot be said that the forgery was done in connection with the matter pending with the Court. The facts of the present case show that there is allegation that two documents were forged viz. document of power of attorney and sale deed. It cannot be said that the forgery was done in connection with the matter pending with the Court. The offences for which the cognizance is taken by the J.M.F.C. are cognizable offences and so the J.M.F.C. has not committed any error in issuing process for aforesaid offences against the petitioners. This Court holds that interference is not warranted in the order made by the J.M.F.C. and the decision given by the Sessions Court. 7. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.